Jeffrey H. Tigay<\/b><\/p>\n
[Jeffrey H. Tigay is professor of Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.]<\/i><\/p>\n
Although it is widely agreed that the phylacteries mentioned in Matt 23:5 are tĕf\u00eell\u00een,a this equation has not gone entirely unquestioned. L. Blau stated that only the words tĕf\u00eell\u00e2 (singular) and tĕf\u00eell\u00een (plural) are used in Talmudic literature, and that conclusions based on the word phylacteries are without foundation, \u201csince this name was not used in truly Jewish circles.\u201d1 G. G. Fox argued that since Greek phylaktēria refers to charms or amulets, and since for the Pharisee the tĕf\u00eell\u00een were truly spiritual symbols rather than magical amulets, Matthew\u2019s use of the term must be a misrepresentation, probably intentional, expressing his contempt for tĕf\u00eell\u00een.2 J. Bowman summed up both arguments thus: \u201cOne is all the more amazed when one knows the difference between phylacteries and Tefillin<\/i>, that any Jew could ever think of calling Tefillin<\/i> phylacteries.\u201d3 Bowman echoed an earlier objection voiced by I. Abrahams to the effect that Matthew\u2019s phrase \u201cmaking broad\u201d (platynousin<\/i>) is not intelligible if the reference is to the \u201cboxes [of the tĕf\u00eell\u00een], which were cubical. One hardly widens a cube.\u201d4 However, Bowman considered implausible the view of Abrahams and others that the reference was to the straps5 rather than to the capsules. Bowman\u2019s own view, following a suggestion by M. Gaster, was that Matthew was not referring to tĕf\u00eell\u00een at all, but, indeed, to amulets, of a type known among the Samaritans, made of parchment and worn directly on the <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 87<\/p>\n
arm rather than held in a container. E. R. Goodenough even produced a fourth-century patristic writer, Epiphanius, who denied the usual interpretation and argued that the term in Matthew refers to \u201cbroad stripes of purple\u201d on the scribes\u2019 garments.6 <\/p>\n
These objections notwithstanding, the equation of phylacteries in Matthew with tĕf\u00eell\u00een has much in its favor:<\/p>\n
1) It has the support of patristic writers as early as the mid-second century, including some who were in contact with Jews and knew their practices. Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) describes the phylaktērion which the Jews were commanded to wear as \u201cmade up of very thin pieces of parchment upon which were inscribed what we consider truly sacred letters\u201d (Dialogue<\/i> with<\/i> Trypho<\/i> 46.5). Jerome (ca. 347\u2013420), in his homily on Matt 23:5\u20136 (PL<\/i> 26. 168), describes the phylacteries of that passage as tĕf\u00eell\u00een containing the Decalogue and says that \u201cthey called them phylacteries (phylacteria<\/i> vocabant<\/i>),\u201d implying that this was really their name, not a misrepresentation.7 <\/p>\n
2) Furthermore, the interpretation of phylacteries as tĕf\u00eell\u00een fits the context, for the ostentation of which the scribes and Pharisees are accused requires that they be charged with flaunting symbols of learning and piety rather than superstition. Indeed, Matthew was not alone in recognizing that tĕf\u00eell\u00een (like any religious, national, or ideological symbol) could be worn in a false or arrogant show of piety and learning. Talmudic and Midrashic sources warn against such a danger and exemplify it with a case. In Midrash<\/i> Ecclesiastes<\/i> Rabbah<\/i>, R. Benjamin interprets Eccl 4:1 as referring to <\/p>\n
hypocrites in regard to the Torah. People suppose that they can read the Scriptures and the Mishnah, but they cannot; they wrap themselves in cloaks and put tĕf\u00eell\u00een on their heads. Of them it is written: \u201cBehold, the tears of the oppressed, with no comforter\u201d (Eccl 4:1). \u201cIt is mine to punish,\u201d says God, as it is said: \u201cCursed be they <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 88<\/p>\n
who do the work of the Lord deceitfully\u201d (Jer 48:10). (Midr<\/i>. Eccl<\/i>. Rab<\/i>. 4:1; Vilna-Romm edition, 12b)8 <\/p>\n
A similar theme is struck in Pesiq<\/i>. R<\/i>. 22:5, interpreting the commandment against taking the Lord\u2019s name in vain to mean: \u201cYou are not to put on tĕf\u00eell\u00een and wrap yourself in your ṭall\u00eet and then go forth and commit transgressions.\u201d9 The Pesiqta<\/i> and parallel sources mention the neglect of the practice of wearing tĕf\u00eell\u00een.10 They blame this on deceivers (rammāʾ\u00een),11 as illustrated by the case of a man who had money which he wished to entrust for safekeeping. He spotted a man wearing tĕf\u00eell\u00een and, concluding that the latter was trustworthy, left the money with him. When he later came to collect his money, the trustee denied that the transaction had ever taken place, to which the first rejoined: \u201cIt wasn\u2019t you that I trusted, but the holy name that was (variant: those [tĕf\u00eell\u00een] that were) upon your head.\u201d12 <\/p>\n
Legal sources of post-Talmudic times speak of two situations in which the wearing of tĕf\u00eell\u00een could appear pretentious or haughty (y\u00f4hăr\u00e2ʾ). In the Geonic period (ca. seventh through eleventh centuries), when the practice was widely neglected, some feared that the very act of observing the precept in the face of widespread neglect would make the wearer <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 89<\/p>\n
appear holier-than-thou or as pretending to the prominence and scholarship of those who did wear them.13 Later, disagreement over the correct order in which the scriptural texts were to be arranged within the tĕf\u00eell\u00een led some authorities to prescribe wearing two sets of tĕf\u00eell\u00een, each arranged in accordance with one of the two main opinions, so that at least one set would be correct. Rabbinic authorities sought to restrict the public observance of this practice lest it be taken as a show of piety.14 <\/p>\n
In sum, tĕf\u00eell\u00een are a type of religious symbol which could be exploited hypocritically, and which Matthew, like the Midrashic and Talmudic sources quoted, could mention in connection with such a charge.15 I doubt whether the same can be said about amulets. Nor would an intentional misrepresentation of tĕf\u00eell\u00een as amulets fit the context. Phylacteries are but one of several practices criticized by Matthew, including long fringes, seeking the best, seats in synagogues, and being called rabbi; none of the other practices is misrepresented as superstitious.<\/p>\n
3) The coupling of tĕf\u00eell\u00een with fringes or fringed cloaks, as in Matthew, is standard in Jewish sources, which often list these two symbols side by side, as in the passages from Midrash<\/i> Ecclesiastes<\/i> Rabbah<\/i> and Pesiqta<\/i> Rabbati<\/i> quoted above.16 <\/p>\n
Justin\u2019s and Jerome\u2019s descriptions of Matthew\u2019s \u201cphylacteries\u201d as tĕf\u00eell\u00een therefore deserve to be considered more seriously. Of the two objections mentioned at the outset, that based on the verb \u201cmaking broad\u201d may be eliminated first. The tĕf\u00eell\u00een capsules discovered at Qumran and Murabbaat show that head tĕf\u00eell\u00een around the turn of the era were not cubical but rectangular, with the breadth across the forehead varying much more than the length. The head capsule found at Murabbaat (DJD<\/i> II, Pl. XIV, 4), the contents of which conform to rabbinic law, confirms that this shape was current in Pharisaic circles. In a group of head capsules from Qumran cave 4 now in the Rockefeller Museum (Box 1008; see photograph) the width varies from 1.65 cm. (not shown; see DJD<\/i> VI, Pl. VI, 4) up to 2.8 cm.\u2014one or two fingers\u2014 measured at the strap passage. One capsule, only three-quarters preserved, is 2.4 cm. wide; in its complete state it would have measured about 3.2 cm. wide and about half as long. Variations in length are in <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 90<\/p>\n
Tefillin<\/i><\/b> receptacles<\/i> from<\/i> Qumran<\/i> Cave<\/i> 4<\/i>.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 91<\/p>\n
most cases less pronounced, and many capsules differ from others mainly in that they were made broader\u2014in Matthew\u2019s language, platynousin<\/i>.17 Medieval Hebrew sources use just such a term in discussing the size of tĕf\u00eell\u00een capsules. For example, R. Asher b. Yehiel discusses why \u201cnowadays they do not make the capsules two fingers wide\u201d (ʾ\u00ean ʿ\u00f4ś\u00een habbāt\u00e2\u00eem rĕḥāb\u00e2\u00eem s̆t\u00ea ʾeṣbāʿot\u00e2).18 As for the connotations of large tĕf\u00eell\u00een, note the following in a responsum of R. Hai Gaon (appointed in 998):<\/p>\n
It was the custom in the academy for the students to make their tĕf\u00eell\u00een small, no higher than a finger, and place a turban over them, whereas the great rabbis would make theirs some three fingers high, so that the students would not be equal to them.19 <\/p>\n
This practice illustrates how, at least in later times, the size of tĕf\u00eell\u00een might be an indication of status.<\/p>\n
The second objection, that the term \u201cphylacteries\u201d does not represent Jewish usage, can also be disproved. In modern times, A. T. Olmstead20 maintained that Jesus himself must have used some term which was translatable by phylaktēria. The Semitic equivalent of the Greek term is qĕm\u00eeʿ\u00een (singular qām\u00eeaʿ).21 This equivalence is indirectly indicated in medieval sources in Ephrem Syrus\u2019 rendering of kĕsāt\u00e2\u00f4t\u00e2 in Ezek 13:18, 20 as q\u00eam\u00eeʿ\u00ea, while the hebraios<\/i> of the Hexapla renders kĕsāt\u00e2\u00f4t\u00e2 as phylaktēria.22 In rabbinic sources tĕf\u00eell\u00een are often mentioned side by side with qĕm\u00eeʿ\u00een23 because of their similar appearance and location on <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 92<\/p>\n
the body. But much more important is that, contrary to what has been said about Jewish usage, in one rabbinic text the word qām\u00eeaʿ is used to refer to the tĕf\u00eell\u00e2 (singular of tĕf\u00eell\u00een). The \u201cnon-canonical\u201d Massek\u00e2et\u00e2 Tĕf\u00eell\u00een uses the word in this way twice:<\/p>\n
If one has put on the phylactery upside down (hāp\u00e2ak\u00e2 ʾet\u00e2 haqqām\u00eeaʿ millĕmaʿl\u00e2), he has not performed his duty (\u00a712).<\/p>\n
If one has written the four Biblical texts of the hand-tĕf\u00eell\u00e2 on four separate pieces of parchment, it is fit. R. Judah says: One should have them sewed together and placed in the phylactery (qām\u00eeaʿ) (\u00a79).24 <\/p>\n
This appellation for the tĕf\u00eell\u00een in a rabbinic source is obviously not intended as a misrepresentation. It undoubtedly reflects the physical similarity of qĕm\u00eeʿin and tĕf\u00eell\u00een. Although Massek\u00e2et\u00e2 Tĕf\u00eell\u00een disqualifies a tĕf\u00eell\u00e2 made in the form of qām\u00eeaʿ,25 the two objects were nonetheless similar enough in appearance to present the possibility of confusion. Talmudic discussion of m<\/i>. ʿErub. 10:1 revolves around the possibility that what appear to be new tĕf\u00eell\u00een may actually be qĕm\u00eeʿin (b<\/i>. ʿErub. 96b\u201397a).26 Geonic responsa describe the tĕf\u00eell\u00een as being manufactured \u201clike a qām\u00eeaʿ.\u201d27 The etymology of qām\u00eeaʿ also lent it to use as a term for tĕf\u00eell\u00een, since the noun is in form a qāt\u00eel adjective (a form \u201cused substantially with a passive meaning to denote duration in a state\u201d)28 and means basically something \u201ctied.\u201d Indeed, the verb qmʿis used in a passage describing the preparation of tĕf\u00eell\u00een: \u201cA woman was married to a ḥāb\u00e2ēr and she used to fasten (q\u00f4maʿat\u00e2) tĕf\u00eell\u00een for him\u201d (t<\/i>. Dem<\/i>. 2:17).29 Since the woman\u2019s action was described in the active voice as q\u00f4maʿat\u00e2, the tĕf\u00eell\u00een themselves could have been described in the passive voice as qĕm\u00eeʿ\u00een, \u201cfastened things.\u201d30 <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 93<\/p>\n
It is not out of the question that superstitious veneration of tĕf\u00eell\u00een facilitated their description as qĕm\u00eeʿ\u00een in the sense of amulets. It is true that the official understanding of tĕf\u00eell\u00een was as educational and spiritual symbols, as indicated in their biblical source texts (Exod 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8; 11:18) and in numerous Talmudic exhortations.31 But there is no lack of evidence that tĕf\u00eell\u00een were ascribed apotropaic properties and used as such.32 Not even scholars were above such an understanding, as illustrated in the case of R. Yoḥanan who wore his tĕf\u00eell\u00een in the privy because, \u201csince the rabbis have permitted this, they (the tĕf\u00eell\u00een) will protect me\u201d (b<\/i>. Ber<\/i>. 23a-b). This attitude does not indicate that tĕf\u00eell\u00een first entered Judaism as amulets any more than the similar use of the Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur\u2019an reflect their original significance; it is but another case of the superstitious veneration which commonly adheres to sacred objects and practices.33 While rabbinic authorities sought to limit the amuletic use of tĕf\u00eell\u00een (see <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981) p. 94<\/p>\n
y<\/i>. S̆abb. and parallels cited in n. 31), they were presumably no more successful than religious authorities usually are in such attempts.34 <\/p>\n
Whether the use of the word qām\u00eeaʿ for tĕf\u00eell\u00een was due to the appearance of tĕf\u00eell\u00een, to superstitious veneration of them, or to the etymology of qām\u00eeaʿ, the fact is that a Hebrew text referred to tĕf\u00eell\u00een with the word q\u00e2m\u00eeaʿ, the Hebrew equivalent of phylaktērion. What gives pause in explaining the Matthean use on the basis of Massek\u00e2et\u00e2 Tĕf\u00eell\u00een is the relative dating of the two documents, since the compilation of the seven minor tractates, of which Massek\u00e2et\u00e2 Tĕf\u00eell\u00een is one, is dated far later than any date proposed for Matthew. Proposed dates are: prior to the final redaction of the Palestinian Talmud (ca. 400), early post-Talmudic, and late Geonic.35 However, these tractates consist primarily of tannaitic sayings.36 The statement using qām\u00eeaʿ for tĕf\u00eell\u00een in Massek\u00e2et\u00e2 Tĕf\u00eell\u00een \u00a7 9 is attributed to the mid-second century tannāʾ R. Judah (b. Ilai). The use of the verb qmʿ in connection with tĕf\u00eell\u00een in a statement of R. Simeon b. Elazar (late second century) quoting R. Meir (mid-second century) (t<\/i>. Dem<\/i>. 2:17, quoted above) further enhances the likelihood that the noun, too, was used for tĕf\u00eell\u00een as early as the second century. In view of the evidence reviewed here, it seems fair to conclude that the use of phylaktērion in Matt 23:5 also reflects the use of qām\u00eeaʿ for tĕf\u00eell\u00een.37 <\/p>\n
(Reprinted by permission from the Harvard<\/i> Theological<\/i> Review<\/i>, Vol. 72, 1979.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jeffrey H. Tigay [Jeffrey H. Tigay is professor of Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.] Although it is widely agreed that the phylacteries mentioned in Matt 23:5 are tĕf\u00eell\u00een,a this equation has not gone entirely unquestioned. L. Blau stated that only the words tĕf\u00eell\u00e2 (singular) and tĕf\u00eell\u00een (plural) are used in Talmudic literature, and … Continue reading “ON
\nTHE TERM PHYLACTERIES (MATT 23:5)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14956","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14956"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14956\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}